Faster CPU = Better Capture Quality with ATI AIW Card?

[TechniCompSoftware]

Will upgrading from my current Athlon 900 CPU to say an Athlon XP 1800 enhance the quality of my captures using the ATI MMC 8.7 software?

I have plently or ram and hard drive space but my CPU is not all that fast.
I don't care about processing time I just want quality.

I have an ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon 7200 card and trying to capture home movie from VHS tape. This produces ok but not good or even great quality compared to the original tape. I do not drop any frames so that is not a problem, the capture just has a lot of video artifacts (The blocky sections of the image) especially in scenes where there is a lot of movement.

My capture settings are:
Mpeg-2 DVD - VBR
352 X 480 - Interlaced
4Mbs Target with 6Mbs Max
99% Motion Estimation
2-P & 2-B frames
Closed Group
Video Soap: None

Any suggestions or Opinions?
P.S. I would like to be able to fit at best 3 or 4 hours on one DVD and at worst 2 hours on a DVD and still get the quality of the original VHS tape.

[lordsmurf]

Yes.... yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes... 8)
Your processor cannot currently handle VBR. CBR suggested.

[overloaded_ide]

I adjust my bits based on time I want on a disk, if you go to low you will have artifacts. I stay constant bit rates and set to 5,000 or 6,000 most the time for Vhs. I seldom have a need to go over 2hrs per disk. When I have wanted to do so, I will make an over sized DVD sometimes to the Hard drive, then use DVD shrink to fit it to one disk. Works pretty well for me too.

Saved my butt a couple times when I went over sized by accident, misjudged the length of a tape etc..
Just shrunk it after creating.

As for the CPU, bigger faster is always better for most computer parts, RAM and CPU especailly so it wouldn't hurt either.
But main thing is if your dropping frames.
Capture a constant bit rate like 5,000 and see how that works.

[TechniCompSoftware]

Seems you are absolutly right.
I tried changing to Constant Bit Rate at 6 Mbs with all other settings the same and I was dropping frames like crazy.

Kept dropping the Bit Rate and didn't stop dropping frames until I got just above 4Mbs and a capture of a home video at this constant rate had quite a bit of artifacts.

So my conclusion is that even thought I had the ATI MMC software set to VBR with 6Mbs Max and 4Mbs target since the CPU could only handle 4Mbs then it did not attempt to capture at any higher rate.

I plan to upgrade to an Athlon Xp 2000 and hopefully this will improve the results and allow me to use Variable Bit Rate and get a good quality capture of my home movies.

Thanks!

[Thorn]

With the same settings, a faster processor will capture much better mpeg video (when the processor is too slow, the encoder takes shortcuts to get the work done on time). ATI says they have hardware mpeg encoding, but it's really the cpu that does most of the work. If you are still not satisfied with the quality on a faster processor, you can experiment with capturing raw and then encoding to mpeg later.

[SatStorm]

In the matter of fact, if it is possible (your mobo can handle it, that is...), I suggest you even more higher CPU, like an athlon xp about 2400 (easy to overclock) or 2600+.
Not that it is important for capturing, but for anything else, the difference is great.
For example, faster mpeg 2 editing, a neccessary task for you the direct-to-mpeg2 users. Don't mention much faster encoding with TMPGenc (realtime if you use CQ or CBR modes...).
The price of a 2600+ is about 100 euros boxed, not bad I think...

[racerxnet]

The Xp chip depends on the FSB of the motherboard. The 2600 is for the 333mhz bus. The Tbred XP 2400 comes in the 266mhz flavor and is well suited for overclocking. With the Via chipset, the drivers should also be maximised for the OS. In this case the Via 4.35 drivers are optimised for WIN 95,98, and ME. You can check this out on Via's web site for verification.

[johns0]

The xp2600 comes in 3 different types,tbred 266 fsb,tbred333 fsb and barton 333 fsb.

[racerxnet]

Hi John,

Thanks for the input on the XP 2600. If one looks for the 266mhz 2600 they will have a tough find. It is an obsolete chip that is sought after by many people with the older boards. You are correct though that it was produced. I suggested the 2400 because the Tbred can be clocked past the 2600 speed and is still widely available. The original post quotes the rig with a 900mhz processor. I think this might be a 200mhz FSB Tbird chip. I had one in a Soyo board several years ago.

[daRev]

Okay, a faster cpu helps, but where do you run into dimished returns? I'm currently using an XP1800+ Palomino w/ AIW 7500 on one system and an XP1600+ Palo w/ AIW 128 (32 meg) on the other that are dedicated capturing systems. I'm capturing MPeg1 (VCD) at the moment, but plan to move up to MPeg2 in a month or so (I don't have a DVD burner yet). I have other systems with faster CPUs for editing, encoding, and other stuff so would a faster CPU really benefit me much with my capturing systems? I'm not running into any dropped frames problems at the moment.

I know that a Barton doesn't encode any faster than a T-Bred/Thorton running at the same clock speed, but does the extra cache of the Barton have any significant affect on actually capturing?

Also, I currently have 256megs in each. Would bumping that up to 512 make any difference in capturing quality, especially when I start capping in MPeg2?

TIA

the Rev

[daRev]

Well, I guess I stumped everyone on this one and I didn't think it was that difficult a question.

da Rev

[Thorn]

I doubt that the cache will make a huge difference. Memory might. Some people have strong opinions that you shouldn't have less than a half gig of memory. It's cheap enough (if you use pricewatch.com - computer sellers still mark memory up more than anything) that I wouldn't go with anything less.

The first thing to ask is how good does the video look when you capture raw and then encode to Mpeg2 using TMPenc. That tells you how much room there is to improve. Sometimes there's a conflict - crappy source material is hard to encode to mpeg because noise turns into artifacts.

I know you don't have the DVD burner yet, but try it out with SVCD (which is mpeg2 and can be VBR) burned on a CDR. Test this on your TV and see if it still looks bad - the computer monitor is very unforgiving.

[SHS]

Why buy new Motherbaord, CPU, etc, etc when could pop in a WinTV-PVR 250 and do FullD1 720x480 MPEG-2 VBR 9.5 with no CPU usage what so ever in REALtime.

[TechniCompSoftware]

I guess I will find out soon enough if a faster CPU, Memory and Motherboard will effect my video capture quality.

On the way is a Athlon XP 2200 CPU, 512 Meg DDR-400 Memory and a PcChips M848LU motherboard.
Of course I wanted a faster CPU but had to get what was resonable. But the Motherboard will handle up to a Athlon XP 3000 and a 400Mhz Front Side Bus with it's BIOS Overclock setting. So this gives me room to upgrade in the future.

I will keep everyone posted on the results, probably after December 25th.

[lordsmurf]

Why buy new Motherbaord, CPU, etc, etc when could pop in a WinTV-PVR 250 and do FullD1 720x480 MPEG-2 VBR 9.5 with no CPU usage what so ever in REALtime.

Because an old computer sucks on so many levels. It'll still bite you in the ass at any editing, encoding or authoring phase. And it may harm the buffer at burn.

[daRev]

Why buy new Motherbaord, CPU, etc, etc when could pop in a WinTV-PVR 250 and do FullD1 720x480 MPEG-2 VBR 9.5 with no CPU usage what so ever in REALtime.

One reason is you can do that for less money than the card and get better overall performance as well as better capturing. For me, it would only require a new processor as I can move the memory from another system.

da Rev

[DereX888]

Quote:
Why buy new Motherbaord, CPU, etc, etc when could pop in a WinTV-PVR 250 and do FullD1 720x480 MPEG-2 VBR 9.5 with no CPU usage what so ever in REALtime.


One reason is you can do that for less money than the card and get better overall performance as well as better capturing. For me, it would only require a new processor as I can move the memory from another system.

...therefore you will have better computer overall, with great capturing abilities, for cheap.
Buying expensive capture card will still leave you with sucky computer, with just better capture abilities, and not for cheap.

Im always amazed by people who suggest most expensive ways to fix things. Are they salesmen or something?

[TechniCompSoftware]

Finished installing the new Motherboard and CPU this weekend along with a new sound card and it made an amazing difference!

Capturing for Digital Cable the results look exactly like the original broadcast on TV.

So needless to say as a final conclusion a new CPU did make a BIG difference in capture quality.

Thanks for all your input!